OTTAWA (Reuters) - Canada on Monday denied it had tried to sway the U.S. presidential election by misrepresenting Democratic candidate Barack Obama with the suggestion that he didn't really believe his criticisms of the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Obama and rival Hillary Clinton -- who both blame the deal for job losses -- say the United States could quit NAFTA unless Canada and Mexico agree to major changes.

Key Obama economic advisor Austan Goolsbee discussed his candidate's policies with the Canadian consulate in Chicago, which wrote a report suggesting Obama's words on NAFTA were designed for a political audience and shouldn't be taken too seriously.

The report was leaked to the U.S. media, prompting some Democrats to accuse Canada's right-leaning Conservative government of trying to interfere in the election -- a charge dismissed by Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

"I certainly deny any allegation that this government has attempted to interfere in the American election," he told Parliament.

"The American people will make the decision as to their next president and I am confident that whoever that person is ... (they) will continue the strong alliance, friendship and partnership that we enjoy with the United States."

Canada sends 75 percent of its exports to the United States and would be badly hurt if Washington pulled out of NAFTA. Government and opposition officials in Canada say they don't believe the talk of withdrawal is serious.

"In the recent report produced by the consulate general in Chicago, there was no intention to convey, in any way, that Senator Obama and his campaign team were taking a different position in public from views expressed in private, including about NAFTA," said a foreign ministry spokesman.

"We deeply regret any inference that may have been drawn to that effect."

Political rivals in Canada regularly accuse Harper of following the policies of U.S. President George W. Bush.

Canada's opposition left-leaning New Democrats have demanded that Harper fire Chief of Staff Ian Brodie, whom they accuse of leaking the document.

"I'm a little bit amused by the question of the leader of the (New Democrats) who is suggesting that we are so all-powerful we could interfere in the American election, pick their president for them. This government doesn't claim that kind of power," said Harper.

The Canadian Embassy and our Consulates General regularly contact those involved in all of the Presidential campaigns and, periodically, report on these contacts to interested officials. In the recent report produced by the Consulate General in Chicago, there was no intention to convey, in any way, that Senator Obama and his campaign team were taking a different position in public from views expressed in private, including about NAFTA. We deeply regret any inference that may have been drawn to that effect.

The people of the United States are in the process of choosing a new President and are fortunate to have strong and impressive candidates from both political parties. Canada will not interfere in this electoral process. We look forward, however, to working with the choice of the American people in further building an unparalleled relationship with a close friend and partner."

memyselfI

03-03-2008, 03:16 PM

He's not even in office and there is already a foreign policy dust up involving him??? ROFL

Sorry, it's not funny but it sure in the hell is amusing.

StcChief

03-03-2008, 03:21 PM

He's not even in office and there is already a foreign policy dust up involving him??? ROFL

Sorry, it's not funny but it sure in the hell is amusing.as there should be Wrong man at the wrong time.

HolmeZz

03-03-2008, 03:30 PM

He's not even in office and there is already a foreign policy dust up involving him??? ROFL

Sorry, it's not funny but it sure in the hell is amusing.

Hillary's being accused of having done the same thing, dipshit.

http://www.saultstar.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=921485

"CTV also quoted low-level sources stating the Clinton campaign made indirect contact with the Canadian government to reassure Ottawa about her support of NAFTA"

It sounds like the Canadians more or less trying to make both of them look bad because they love NAFTA up there.

jAZ

03-03-2008, 03:33 PM

Hillary's being accused of having done the same thing, dipshit.

http://www.saultstar.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=921485

"CTV also quoted low-level sources stating the Clinton campaign made indirect contact with the Canadian government to reassure Ottawa about her support of NAFTA"

It sounds like the Canadians more or less trying to make both of them look bad.
But Obama is the only one facing a scandal. How is that possible!?!

Taco John

03-03-2008, 04:13 PM

Here's an interesting question:

Given the way we over-reach in the world, isn't it perfectly legitimate that other countries would want to have influence in our elections?

That's not a question of whether it's "right" or not. Just whether it's legitimate.

jAZ

03-03-2008, 04:31 PM

Here's an interesting question:

Given the way we over-reach in the world, isn't it perfectly legitimate that other countries would want to have influence in our elections?

That's not a question of whether it's "right" or not. Just whether it's legitimate.
I think you are completely correct. It's a question of whether such actions are in their best interest.

It really makes you wonder whether the Conservative Party of Canada fears that Obama is serious about threatening NAFTA. Not only are they ideologically favorable to free-trade, but 70% of Canada's exports are to the US under NAFTA. So they have to take such threats seriously.

I think you are completely correct. It's a question of whether such actions are in their best interest.

It really makes you wonder whether the Conservative Party of Canada fears that Obama is serious about threatening NAFTA. Not only are they ideologically favorable to free-trade, but 70% of Canada's exports are to the US under NAFTA. So they have to take such threats seriously.

It's my contention that the Conservative gov. in Canada wouldn't interfere unless they had a wink from the CON gov. HERE. Thus, if someone is trying to sabotage Obamessiah then it's because they're trying to help out someone here and it's not Clinton.

jAZ

03-03-2008, 04:50 PM

It's my contention that the Conservative gov. in Canada wouldn't interfere unless they had a wink from the CON gov. HERE. Thus, if someone is trying to sabotage Obamessiah then it's because they're trying to help out someone here and it's not Clinton.
Clinton winning this race is the best possible thing for the McCain campaign and the GOP. Don't kid yourself. They don't have a meaningful coelescing theme against Obama, but they get a rock-solid one against Hillary. With Hillary as the Dem nominee, McCain can stop pandering to the far right and start moving agressively to the center. With Obama, he's forced to stay right in order to hold the base.

Clinton is a gift to McCain... and DC and CA both know this.

memyselfI

03-03-2008, 04:54 PM

Clinton winning this race is the best possible thing for the McCain campaign and the GOP. Don't kid yourself. They don't have a meaningful coelescing theme against Obama, but they get a rock-solid one against Hillary. With Hillary as the Dem nominee, McCain can stop pandering to the far right and start moving agressively to the center. With Obama, he's forced to stay right in order to hold the base.

Clinton is a gift to McCain... and DC and CA both know this.

I think you and I are on the same page here. But you might believe they were doing this more FOR Clinton and I tend to think they were doing it more for McCain.

Perhaps we are both seeing the same thing.

jAZ

03-03-2008, 05:01 PM

I think you and I are on the same page here. But you might believe they were doing this more FOR Clinton and I tend to think they were doing it more for McCain.

Perhaps we are both seeing the same thing.
I believe they are doing it for McCain as well. Clinton is a proximate beneficiary.

patteeu

03-03-2008, 06:21 PM

Hillary's being accused of having done the same thing, dipshit.

http://www.saultstar.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=921485

"CTV also quoted low-level sources stating the Clinton campaign made indirect contact with the Canadian government to reassure Ottawa about her support of NAFTA"

It sounds like the Canadians more or less trying to make both of them look bad because they love NAFTA up there.

It's OK that he's an insincere panderer talking out of both sides of his mouth as long as Hillary is doing the same thing.

patteeu

03-03-2008, 06:22 PM

Here's an interesting question:

Given the way we over-reach in the world, isn't it perfectly legitimate that other countries would want to have influence in our elections?

That's not a question of whether it's "right" or not. Just whether it's legitimate.

If it's really not a question of whether it's "right" or not, I don't think "legitimate" is the best choice of words for your question. If you're asking whether it's "understandable" I could say yes.

MurphDog

03-03-2008, 07:26 PM

I think you are completely correct. It's a question of whether such actions are in their best interest.

It really makes you wonder whether the Conservative Party of Canada fears that Obama is serious about threatening NAFTA. Not only are they ideologically favorable to free-trade, but 70% of Canada's exports are to the US under NAFTA. So they have to take such threats seriously.

Not having Obama as president is in everyones best interest. Of course they are worried about NAFTA because Obama and Hillary are opening their mouths with out a clue.

patteeu

03-04-2008, 06:49 AM

I think a better thread title would be "Are jAZ and Reuters trying to whitewash Obama's obvious doubletalking".

jAZ

03-04-2008, 08:09 AM

It's OK that he's an insincere panderer talking out of both sides of his mouth as long as Hillary is doing the same thing.
Obama didn't make these statements, and NO one is suggesting that Obama's campaign directed Goolsbee to make any such contact. You are trying to take this story further than the facts take it.

In fact, Goolsbee says that he didn't say anything of the sort and Canadians seem to be supporting that. They are saying "there was no intention to convey, in any way, that Senator Obama and his campaign team were taking a different position in public from views expressed in private, including about NAFTA. We deeply regret any inference that may have been drawn to that effect."

In Ottawa, Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper disputed the contention of his political opposition that his right-leaning government leaked word of the meeting to complicate Obama's chances or to favor Republican Sen. John McCain, who strongly supports NAFTA.[...]

Canada's left-leaning New Democratic party demanded that Harper fire his chief of Staff, Ian Brodie, who is reported to have leaked word of the meeting.

Sandra Buckler, a Harper spokeswoman, denied Monday that Brodie or anyone in Harper's office leaked word of the memo or meeting. [...]

Analysts in Canada believe Harper does not want a Democrat in the White House, a development that could encourage Canadian voters to cast their ballots for a more liberal government in an election that will be held before 2010.

patteeu

03-04-2008, 08:26 AM

Obama didn't make these statements, and NO one is suggesting that Obama's campaign directed Goolsbee to make any such contact. You are trying to take this story further than the facts take it.

In fact, Goolsbee says that he didn't say anything of the sort and Canadians seem to be supporting that. They are saying "there was no intention to convey, in any way, that Senator Obama and his campaign team were taking a different position in public from views expressed in private, including about NAFTA. We deeply regret any inference that may have been drawn to that effect."

He's one of Obama's top economic advisors (if not "the" top advisor). If he's telling one group to discount what Obama's telling another group by indicating that he's just pandering to get votes, it's not a defense to say that "Obama didn't make these statements". Nor is it accurate to say that "NO one is suggesting that Obama's campaign directed Goolsbee to make any such contact". Goolsbee is Obama's campaign.

Furthermore, the Canadians are not supporting that with the statement you quote. They are just expressing regret, not saying that anyone has been drawn to the wrong idea.

This is a major window into Obama's "just another politician like all the rest" soul.

In Ottawa, Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper disputed the contention of his political opposition that his right-leaning government leaked word of the meeting to complicate Obama's chances or to favor Republican Sen. John McCain, who strongly supports NAFTA.[...]

Canada's left-leaning New Democratic party demanded that Harper fire his chief of Staff, Ian Brodie, who is reported to have leaked word of the meeting.

Sandra Buckler, a Harper spokeswoman, denied Monday that Brodie or anyone in Harper's office leaked word of the memo or meeting. [...]

Analysts in Canada believe Harper does not want a Democrat in the White House, a development that could encourage Canadian voters to cast their ballots for a more liberal government in an election that will be held before 2010.

Why are they concerned if none of this ever really happened? Afterall the Canadian government never intended the obvious and they regret any confusion on the matter. LOL

jAZ

03-04-2008, 08:53 AM

He's one of Obama's top economic advisors (if not "the" top advisor). If he's telling one group to discount what Obama's telling another group by indicating that he's just pandering to get votes, ...
He's saying that's not what he said, and the Canadians seem to be supporting him on that...
...it's not a defense to say that "Obama didn't make these statements".
It's a fact that he didn't. It's more than a mere defense. And I can't stand here and say that it's impossible for Obama to believe the most extreme interpretation of the memo (and if we assume it's not ultimately completely Conservative propaganda)... it's possible... it's also not a fact that Obama believes anything different than what he said, even if an advisor says otherwise. Obama has said that he wants a range of voices in his administration, not a chorus of group think like the current one. So its possible that Goolsbee could say and believe the things the memo suggests and that it reflects nothing of Obama's views. You can't discount that.
Nor is it accurate to say that "NO one is suggesting that Obama's campaign directed Goolsbee to make any such contact". Goolsbee is Obama's campaign.
No he's not. At best he's one member of the campaign, and not a central figure at that. He's not Barack Obama, David Axlerod, David Poluffe or any other person directing this campaign. He's a policy advisor. That's a complete different role and you know it.
Furthermore, the Canadians are not supporting that with the statement you quote. They are just expressing regret, not saying that anyone has been drawn to the wrong idea.
Now you are just lying. They aren't "just expressing regret". They are saying quite explicitly... "there was no intention to convey, in any way, that Senator Obama and his campaign team were taking a different position in public from views expressed in private". Sometimes you act as if no one is watching. It's weird.

jAZ

03-04-2008, 08:58 AM

Why are they concerned if none of this ever really happened? Afterall the Canadian government never intended the obvious and they regret any confusion on the matter. LOL
Since you seem to be the last human on earth confused on this... they would fabricate it BECAUSE they are concerned Obama would beat Hillary and they think McCain has a better chance against Hillary. That they "leaked" the story and then memo at all is evidence that they are willing to inject themsevles into the race to help Clinton and McCain and hurt Obama. That part is undeniable.

patteeu

03-04-2008, 02:36 PM

Since you seem to be the last human on earth confused on this...

LMAO I'm far from the last human on earth confused on this. With all the changing stories coming out of the Obama camp, I'd imagine that there are quite a few confused humans around. Instead of getting buried in your hyper-defensive spin though, I think the chronology of this event deserves it's own thread.

This thread can be about whether or not the people who leaked Obama covert doubletalk were doing so to damage the panderer's campaign.

Cochise

03-04-2008, 02:46 PM

guess conservatives are de debbil up there too

jAZ

03-04-2008, 04:19 PM

LMAO I'm far from the last human on earth confused on this. With all the changing stories coming out of the Obama camp, I'd imagine that there are quite a few confused humans around. Instead of getting buried in your hyper-defensive spin though, I think the chronology of this event deserves it's own thread.

This thread can be about whether or not the people who leaked Obama covert doubletalk were doing so to damage the panderer's campaign.

I've never heard anyone but you try to pretend there is no motivation for or benefit to the Canadian Conservative Party leadership to spin a the details of a conversation and leak a memo with that spin in such a way that it hurts Obama, helps Clinton and helps McCain.

That's the sort of head-in-the-sand analysis I would expect from someone who still invade Iraq again knowing what we know now.

patteeu

03-04-2008, 04:47 PM

I've never heard anyone but you try to pretend there is no motivation for or benefit to the Canadian Conservative Party leadership to spin a the details of a conversation and leak a memo with that spin in such a way that it hurts Obama, helps Clinton and helps McCain.

That's the sort of head-in-the-sand analysis I would expect from someone who still invade Iraq again knowing what we know now.

You misunderstood my post. I was probably unclear.

The Canadian liberals don't appear to be upset about a Canadian conservative leaking word of a meeting that supposedly didn't happen, or alternatively about a conversation that didn't happen (at the meeting that did happen). IOW, I don't get the impression that the liberals are saying that the conservatives made it up out of whole cloth. Instead they appear to be upset because the conservatives allowed the actual message of Obama's advisor to leak thereby embarassing Obama.

jAZ

03-04-2008, 05:20 PM

You misunderstood my post. I was probably unclear.

The Canadian liberals don't appear to be upset about a Canadian conservative leaking word of a meeting that supposedly didn't happen, or alternatively about a conversation that didn't happen (at the meeting that did happen). IOW, I don't get the impression that the liberals are saying that the conservatives made it up out of whole cloth. Instead they appear to be upset because the conservatives allowed the actual message of Obama's advisor to leak thereby embarassing Obama.
The only thing that an outsider (you, me, Canadian liberals, whoever) KNOWS is that the story and memo were deliberately leaked and that they make Obama look bad. They don't know what was said in any meeting.

So the inference you are making based on an omission of an objection to falsification... is flawed. They are objecting to the facts on the table now. Falsification isn't a known fact. You don't have anything to base such an "impression" upon one way or the other.

patteeu

03-04-2008, 05:54 PM

The only thing that an outsider (you, me, Canadian liberals, whoever) KNOWS is that the story and memo were deliberately leaked and that they make Obama look bad. They don't know what was said in any meeting.

So the inference you are making based on an omission of an objection to falsification... is flawed. They are objecting to the facts on the table now. Falsification isn't a known fact. You don't have anything to base such an "impression" upon one way or the other.

Other than the lack of credibility of the Obama campaign brought on by changing their story several times and, by contrast, the credibility of a memo that was intended for internal consumption and reportedly distributed far and wide within the Canadian government, that is.